WSDOT HOV Overview

48 Replies to “WSDOT HOV Overview”

1. At least with the HOV gap between 56th Ave and Lakewood, I don’t see any need to build out anything.

   Just add the paint. Preferably, HOV-3.

   There would still be 3 general purpose lanes, there isn’t substantial congestion here, except with the ramps around Hwy 512, and would improve the reliability of the ST express buses between Lakewood and Tacoma.

   Maybe fiddle and give them some signal priority around the congestion at Hwy 512.

   I suspect “just add the paint” is the solution to many of the gaps. Nothing to build. And we shouldn’t.

   1. Yeah, the Tacoma I-5/Highway 16 interchange is a prefect example of why building nothing is often the right choice. WSDOT upgrades mean construction for a decade…. with decreased traffic flow.

      Unending freeway construction will never improve traffic.

      1. Uhhh tacommee aren’t you the one that always advocates for building far flung single family homes?

      2. But anyways that’s for transit one large missed opportunity around Tacoma is the lack of the direct access ramps for Tacoma and the mall

      3. WL,

         Well, let’s just look at the facts here…..
         Over the last 20 years….

         Greater Seattle built thousands of units of housing and the price went nowhere but up.

         Greater Seattle widened the freeways in many of the “bottlenecks” and yet traffic is worse than ever.

         Why on earth would a young person look that these facts and believe the next 20 years will be different? Seattle isn’t some little socialist hamlet in a snow globe. Regional and National issues and trends control what happens in Seattle to a great extent. Those crazy wildfires in L.A. just drove the cost of housing in Seattle up another notch.

      4. @tacommee

         the us population still grew, housing still needs to be built. If one doesn’t like apartments prefers single family housing and wants even larger freeway expansions that is at least consistent. some city somewhere must build the housing, and no it cannot be where there are no jobs.

         I’m sorry tacommee but we cannot freeze every major metropolitan area to never build new housing.

         > Regional and National issues and trends control what happens in Seattle to a great extent.

         It works both ways tacommee. You cannot always expect some “other” city to build the housing for you.

      5. WL,

         “It works both ways tacommee. You cannot always expect some “other” city to build the housing for you.”

         This just isn’t the least bit true. You can expect other cities to build housing for you. This is the problem.

         Looking back 30 years…. just how and why did housing prices in Seattle grow at such high rate? Wasn’t because of some local baby boom! California just didn’t build enough housing, so people moved North. As long as out-of-State money keeps flowing in, there is no “local housing market”. Looking for local solutions like zoning or “social housing” to a regional problem is total folly.

         The same market forces that point to massive freeway traffic, no matter how many more lanes are built…. also point to high housing costs no matter how more many units are built.

         Seattle is just is “played out” for the working class.

      6. @tacommee

         any place that refuses to build housing will become “played out.”

         > This just isn’t the least bit true. You can expect other cities to build housing for you. This is the problem.

         That is literally the problem, us cities approve new jobs and offices, but not enough housing. In any case, again tacommee if this really is your view, I suggest you continue the discussion on some nimby forum. I’m not sure why you come here everyday to comment about never building any housing anywhere in america

2. My personal experience with the HOV network consists mostly of carpool trips to hiking destinations in the mountains. In the outbound trip, there is almost never any traffic because it’s early morning on a weekend. The return trip does often have traffic, with one of the biggest traffic delays areas being I-5 southbound near Marysville. Unfortunately, it looks like they’re only doing work in the northbound direction, leaving carpools to fight the traffic going south.

3. Yeesh, another lane for 167? Does WSDOT have the funding for that?

   I don’t mind the idea of an express bus on 167, but it seems to just be duplicating Sounder S. The big difference seems to be a transfer point in Renton. I imagine it’s much cheaper than expanding Sounder runs?

   An express bus heading from Puyallup-Auburn-Kent-S Renton-Seattle would make a lot of sense to me, and would pair well with Stride 1. Renton’s existing routes to Seattle (101, 106) are horrendously slow, and I think the travel demand is there, given the ridership of the 578 and 150. Though maybe 578 is mostly due to Federal Way?

   It’s really too bad there are no plans to add center exit lanes around Southcenter; it would make a good transfer point for all the South King routes (150, F, Stride, and the theoretical Auburn-Renton-Seattle express).

   1. “I don’t mind the idea of an express bus on 167, but it seems to just be duplicating Sounder S.”

      Sounder doesn’t run off-peak.

      ST working with BNSF on a few more timeslots for Sounder, but it won’t run half-hourly all day, much less every 15 minutes. That’s where a 167 express bus/BRT can come in. It could connect Puyallup to Renton, transferring to Bellevue. That would give people a way to get to some kind of large urban area with jobs and retail options, with the Eastside’s prestige. That could help transform southeast King County to a more transit-using area in a minor way. It would also complement RapidRide I. It wouldn’t address getting to Seattle, but improvements to the 101 in Renton could address that.

      A 167 route is so far in the future and speculative that we don’t know what the possibilities for Renton-Seattle service will be then. Metro Connects doesn’t even go that far.

      1. [ot]

      2. On the 101 (and 150): Is there a reason to continue to use the SODO busway in the long term? It’s going to close soon(-ish), and it takes quite a while to get through SODO, even on the busway. It seems to me that it’d be more important to connect to Seattle’s CBD, where most of the jobs and transfer routes are located.

         Why not route in the opposite direction? Exit on Seneca, head down to Stadium, lay over at Metro base; do the reverse (entering on Spring) when headed southbound.

      3. > On the 101 (and 150): Is there a reason to continue to use the SODO busway in the long term? It’s going to close soon(-ish), and it takes quite a while to get through SODO, even on the busway. It seems to me that it’d be more important to connect to Seattle’s CBD, where most of the jobs and transfer routes are located.

         During peak times i5 is pretty backed up on the last 2~3 mile segment into seattle. It’s faster to use the sodo busway. It’s not just the kcm 101 and 150. The st express 590, 594 and 595 use the sodo bus way as well.

         There were plans to build a hov direct access ramp to and from I5 at industrial way to avoid buses weaving from the center of the freeway to the right side spokane exit, but it was never built.

         the sodo busway will likely be replaced with right side bus lanes on 4th avenue.

         > Why not route in the opposite direction? Exit on Seneca, head down to Stadium, lay over at Metro base; do the reverse (entering on Spring) when headed southbound.

         some other buses like the 578 does directly exit on spring and seneca

      4. Sounder doesn’t run off-peak.

         Yeah but you don’t need the extra lane off-peak. The argument for this is similar to the one asdf2 and Lazarus made here: https://seattletransitblog.com/2025/01/29/wsdot-hov-overview/#comment-950131. It isn’t really for buses. It is for carpools and general traffic. Basically they want to make carpooling as easy as possible (which also benefits general traffic). As adsf2 pointed out, some of the buses run express to Bellevue — so there is that.

         Whether we can afford the work or not is a different matter.

      5. @ WL

         > During peak times i5 is pretty backed up on the last 2~3 mile segment into seattle. It’s faster to use the sodo busway

         I suppose that makes sense, though to me that seems to be sacrificing off-peak ridership (and operator hours) for peak riders. The delays on I-5 to Seattle seem fixable with ETLs or paint; hopefully that is on the horizon.

         In particular maybe the 150 would benefit from heading straight downtown. I suspect that most riders would just take Sounder during peak hours anyway.

         On a bit of a tangent: the 101 would probably be a lot more useful if it had a decent tail. Most obvious would be Renton Highlands via The Landing or Renton Tech.

         @ Ross Bleakney

         I think S Renton makes the most obvious hub. Stopping in Renton means there would no longer be a need for express buses from 167-Bellevue (566, 567), since there would be a decent transfer to Stride. Perhaps a theoretical 167-Seattle line could stop in S Renton and then take over the 101; then the entire 167 corridor would then have a 1-seat ride to Seattle and a 2-seat ride to Bellevue.

         I don’t think it’s necessary to connect to Tukwila. Tukwila-Seattle is already relatively well-served by the 150.

   2. > Puyallup-Auburn-Kent-S Renton-Seattle

      A puyallup, auburn, Kent, to Seattle bus is possible.

      Having the bus in south Renton is complicated with the current interchange and will moderately lengthening travel times.

      > It’s really too bad there are no plans to add center exit lanes around Southcenter;

      Unfortunately I don’t think wsdot has figured a good way for a bus station on i405 near Southcenter. There is a separate idea for a center hov exit at de 27th for sr 167 but it wasn’t moved forward even in the master plan

      1. I could see extending it to Rainier Beach station. That would give it a transfer to Link, another ST service. But not to downtown. The 578 will probably be truncated by then, and I can’t see a new express route going to downtown.

      2. But, with the transfer overhead, plus a detour to south Renton Park and ride, I feel like it might not be all that much faster than the alternative of slogging it out on the 150, especially if this bus runs less often than the 150 (which it probably would). This is especially a problem in the southbound direction when you’re transferring from train to bus. And Rainier Beach station is not the most pleasant place to wait.

         I feel like, in order for an express alternative to the 150 to offer meaningful time savings to downtown, it really needs to go downtown nonstop. But then it becomes too many service hours chasing too few riders.

         This, is a nutshell, is a lot of the problems you have trying to design a transit system for an area with poor land use. Any single trip in isolation, you can dramatically reduce the travel time by building a special express route, but the number of routes you’d need to do that for everyone would be cost-prohibitive, and the system that allocates resources fairly, rather than a red carpet for a few, paid for by worse service for everyone else, ends up being a system that sucks everywhere.

      3. The 101 is in the Puyallup-Renton corridor, not the 150.

      4. @asdf2

         > I feel like, in order for an express alternative to the 150 to offer meaningful time savings to downtown, it really needs to go downtown nonstop. But then it becomes too many service hours chasing too few riders.

         Well technically in the very far future, WSDOT does have plans for a HOV direct access ramp in all directions at the SR 167/i405. That would allow an auburn, kent, renton, seattle bus to stop at renton transit center relatively easily. though even such a configuration would still require some north leg to east leg hov direct connector at I-5 to I-405.

         I will caution that this final extravagant build of the sr167/i405 is probably like 1 or 2 billion dollars.

         I’ll probably write a more detailed article about the sr 167 and the future plans in renton given the relatively high interest people showed along that corridor.

      5. > Puyallup-Auburn-Kent-S Renton-Seattle

         A puyallup, auburn, Kent, to Seattle bus is possible.

         Having the bus in south Renton is complicated with the current interchange and will moderately lengthening travel times.

         Yes, and that is one of the conundrums in the area. Renton is too big of a destination too skip. But if you include Renton then you make the trip to Seattle (from places to the south) too time consuming. It is an issue with travel to Bellevue as well.

         I think it makes sense to rely on the 566 (and Metro) to connect Auburn and Kent to Renton. The 566 runs Auburn/Kent/Renton/Bellevue. Then you create a midday version of Sounder, although I would skip Tukwila (too awkward to serve with a bus and too little there). So that means Puyallup/Sumner/Auburn/Kent/Seattle.

         There are a bunch of other issues. For example do we have enough riders now to resurrect the 567 (which skips Renton)? How does Stride fit into this?

         And of course, Federal Way Link. Right now ST is covering major corridors with express buses from the south: Dupont/Lakewood/Tacoma/Seattle and Puyallup/Sumner/Auburn/Federal Way/Seattle. It is also running the 574 which runs Lakewood/Tacoma/SeaTac. With Federal Way Link a lot of these routes can be combined. I would leverage Sounder and Link where it is appropriate. I would have the following:

         1) 574 — Only runs late at night (when Link isn’t running).
         2) Midday bus from Dupont/Lakewood/Tacoma/Federal Way/Seattle.
         3) Midday bus from Tacoma/Puyallup/Sumner/Auburn/Kent-Des Moines Station.
         4) As described above a midday Puyallup/Sumner/Auburn/Kent/Seattle bus.

         If you ran the buses every fifteen minutes (which I think is reasonable) it would provide a good midday substitute for Sounder. It would not make all the connections (Tukwila is out of luck) but it would get most of them. It would also provide good connections to Link without breaking the bank. I would start with this for a couple years. It is quite possible that a lot of ridership would be just too low to support the service and have to be trimmed. For example I could see the bus to Lakewood and Dupont only running every half hour while the bus to Tacoma runs every fifteen minutes.

      6. One service design challenge with transit stops on SR 167 is that most freeway interchanges aren’t near any destinations. So actual freeway stops except for maybe 188th and Downtown Kent are remote. Plus no Sounder station is right at the freeway even though they appear close on a regional map.

         What I see instead emerging is an eventual grid of BRT lines like RapidRide I. I can see Route 150 getting a RapidRide upgrade with a letter someday. I can see at least one or two East-west RapidRide routes if demand warrants it after the restructure like one between Des Moines to Kent East Hill or Covington, and Federal Way to Auburn.

         The other missing piece is a lack of choosing one primary hub in the 167 corridor. Every station is given similar prominence. It’s different than how Bellevue or Lynnwood operate for their parts of the region. It would be ideal for 167 to have a direct access ramp — but which station gets it? Accessing Tukwila, Kent, Auburn, Sumner and Puyallup along with 188th would mean that buses would be constantly be getting off and on so the freeway does not provide the benefit that we would expect.

         My suggestion would be to choose Kent as that primary hub. It’s the most populous city. The Sounder station is not far from the freeway. Then the South King Amtrak stop could move to Kent to augment Sounder and connect to faster buses to SeaTac, Bellevue as well as RapudRide I and Metro 150. A direct access strategy from 167 could be the major new investment.

         But more than that, the SouthCenter transit connections need to be revisited and a new project needs to be developed. It was bad enough for Link to skip SouthCenter. Now Stride is skipping it too. And no ST Express buses from I-5 or I-405 stop there either.

      7. If you are going to continue to lean heavily on buses, you need to concurrently improve reliability and congestion for transit on I-5.

         – HOV-3, or preferably even tolling.

         – Cameras everywhere.
         – Mail tickets to lane violators.
         – Mail tickets to speeders, so people stop blowing themselves up and
         shutting down the highway.
         – Actually arrest road-ragers.

         You also need to get appropriate buses. The greyhounds are comfy, but a pain for luggage and wheelchairs and such.

      8. ” I can see Route 150 getting a RapidRide upgrade with a letter someday. I can see at least one or two East-west RapidRide routes if demand warrants it after the restructure like one between Des Moines to Kent East Hill or Covington, and Federal Way to Auburn.”

         RapidRide 150 (Kent-downtown)
         https://seattletransitblog.com/2024/08/02/rapidride-corridor-1049-route-150/

         RapidRide 164 (KDM-Kent-GRCC)
         https://seattletransitblog.com/2024/08/22/rapidride-corridor-1056-route-165/
         (Currently part of route 165, but will be split to 164 in the Federal Way Link restructure)

         RapidRide 181 (Federal Way-Auburn)
         https://seattletransitblog.com/2024/08/23/rapidride-corridor-1052-route-181/

         RapidRide prioritization overview
         https://seattletransitblog.com/2024/07/23/rapidride-future-and-prioritization/
         Near construction: I, J.
         Next ones: K, R.
         Tier 1: Routes 150 and 36.
         Tier 2: Routes 40, 44, and B+271 (east-west).
         Tier 3: Routes 165 (164), 181, and B+226 (north-south).

         The 150 includes alternatives of terminating at Rainier Beach, remaining on the busway, or moving to and upgrading 4th Ave S if Link displaces the busway.

4. Why does the map legend at the top of this article have an entry for a solid yellow line when the only yellow I see is the circles for future direct access ramps? Maybe the map is outdated because I don’t see the extension to Marysville there, but still seems like poor copyediting on WSDOMA’s part.

   A bit of a tangent, but I was shocked to look at the drawings for the I-5/529 interchange and see that southbound I-5 will continue exiting to southbound 529 only and similarly northbound 529 to I-5, while northbound I-5 can access the roundabout to go in either direction and either direction of 529 can use the roundabout to get to southbound I-5. I know most of the population and jobs are to the south, but I would have expected it to be the other way around. I thought part of the purpose of this interchange was to provide a way around backups at the railroad tracks on SR 528, which are as much of a problem heading southbound (or trying to get to northbound) as northbound (or trying to get to southbound), though admittedly harder to anticipate before you exit. By contrast, SR 529 south doesn’t have an at-grade railroad crossing to deal with, and there’s not that much on Smith Island or whatever that thing is directly north of it, so it seems like for most traffic that would be going northbound-to-southbound it’s much more indirect than just taking Marine View Drive, even with that route passing through a populated area with at-grade intersections and stoplights. Even if trucks were to want to use the new exit to reach the Port of Everett, if the roundabout is as small as it looks on the map I’m not sure how they’re going to navigate it. Maybe it’s just to minimize construction costs by keeping the existing ramps, but in my head I’d imagined using U-Turn loops to turn the segment of 529 paralleling I-5 into one big roundabout spanning the freeway – and there already was a short two-way u-turn route between the northbound and southbound lanes of 529 at the north end of the interchange before they removed it as part of construction.

   1. > Why does the map legend at the top of this article have an entry for a solid yellow line when the only yellow I see is the circles for future direct access ramps? Maybe the map is outdated because I don’t see the extension to Marysville there, but still seems like poor copyediting on WSDOMA’s part.

      The map is from 2022. Previous iterations of the map probably used the yellow line when the tacoma hov was under construction

      > A bit of a tangent, but I was shocked to look at the drawings for the I-5/529 interchange and see that southbound I-5 will continue exiting to southbound 529 only and similarly northbound 529 to I-5…

      From wsdot their rationale to build the new entrance/exit is to provide another way in and out of Marysville to/from the south (everett/seattle). It does avoid the railroads tracks which is a plus but providing i5 access in all directions while avoiding the railroad wasn’t the main goal.

      Or to put it in another way it’s a “half diamond” interchange entering onto i-5 south and exiting off I-5 north for marysville (and other travelers to the east).

      Though I will add the caveat I don’t know the area as well that far up north.

      1. Still doesn’t explain why they’re building the new roundabout whose main purpose seems to be facilitating northbound-to-southbound traffic.

      2. The roundabout just seems to maintain for local access to that “farm” to the west from northbound i5. Or also I guess emergency use

         I don’t really think it’s serving some major freeway traffic purpose. There’s no reason for anyone on i5 north to exit and then head back south onto sr 529.

         Maybe someone or city just complained they wanted to keep the existing u turn there and wsdot added the roundabout. Or maybe just slow people down before they enter marysville

   2. I thought part of the purpose of this interchange was to provide a way around backups at the railroad tracks on SR 528, which are as much of a problem heading southbound (or trying to get to northbound) as northbound (or trying to get to southbound), though admittedly harder to anticipate before you exit.

      Apparently not. Or at least they aren’t concerned that folks from the north have to deal with that problem.

      The roundabout was likely added because you have that functionality now. Drivers (mostly trucks I assume) can do a U-Turn on 529 there (https://maps.app.goo.gl/YSwPJ4Yo3YaDxbCJ8). It is basically a “might as well”. The roundabout also slows down drivers coming off the freeway (before they get into Marysville). It is 30 MPH over the bridge (https://maps.app.goo.gl/vmDCVYKGUc6VKTx38) and I would imagine folks routinely go 45 (and they would if they came off the freeway).

      It may be that they considered a similar U-Turn roundabout on the other side. I could easily see adding this just north of the bridge over Steamboat Slough (basically here: https://maps.app.goo.gl/ZMkN95StSF9tEUyd8). That way drivers could head southbound on I-5, exit 529 and then reverse directions to get to Marysville (or do the reverse). My guess is they figured not that many people would do that. The other problem is that building at that particular location may be a problem. It looks like it is wetlands there. A lot of the road there probably couldn’t be built now (or building it would be really expensive). Looking at topographic maps it is all swamp: https://caltopo.com/map.html#ll=48.03807,-122.18144&z=15&b=t. The new ramps appear to avoid the swamps which may be how they were able to do it.

      That doesn’t mean you couldn’t build ramps with U-Turn capability (by building to the east) but it would be a lot more expensive. I think it is a combination of things (that you mentioned). Folks coming from the north can’t anticipate the railroad track slowdown. You could add the ramps and a considerable number of riders would use the existing ramps. At rush hour you will get a lot of people using that exist heading to Marysville. This again would be a disincentive for those from north of there to use the U-Turn 529 ramp (why throw yourself into Everett traffic?). My guess is they just focused on solving the biggest traffic problem which is Everett to Marysville.

5. The references to 167 remind me of the ramps connecting the HOV lanes of 167 and 405 together. Sounds great, except, transit-wise, these ramps are only usable by buses that bypass Renton completely, limiting it to just a handful of trips on ST567. With such little bus service using the ramps, it effectively feels like a car project, with the transit element merely incidental.

   My personal experience with these ramps is limited to carpools to/from Mt. Rainier. I have never actually ridden the 567.

   1. It’s what happens when each agency designs what they want.

      However, as public boondoggles go, the $700 million is not at the top of the list. Plus the project cost is supposed to be recoverable as an electronic toll segment.

      And it is too bad that many Stride stops are either time consuming (South Renton) or non-existent (SouthCenter with 150; Sounder; I-5 express buses; I-90 express buses). It’s a stark contrast to the Downtown Bellevue transit hub. It could have been an amazing cross-regional service had plans been created to efficiently tie in more of the major radial transit routes and activity nodes along 405 as Stride stations.

      1. Agreed, they really missed the mark on Stride stations/direct access ramps in the Renton-Tukwila-Burien stretch of I-405. There’s many major destinations a short distance from the freeway that require traveling circuitous surface routes in mixed traffic that would have been so much better being served by Stride BRT with ramps and stations (Southcenter, TIBS Link, Tukwila Sounder, Downtown Renton).

   2. It definitely seems like WSDOMA builds HOV lanes for carpools more than buses unless Sound Transit pushes them into it – in this case to facilitate Puyallup/Auburn/Kent carpools to the Eastside. For another example, the proposed extension of the SR 16 HOV lanes to Purdy would only be used by the 595 which runs three trips in each direction.

      (I wasn’t sure how many buses or carpools would use the HOV lane extension on I-5 past Olympia all the way to SR 121 seen on the map at the top of this post, but it turns out the 620 is more frequent than you’d expect for a route as long as it is that connects two different urban areas, and both ruralTransit, which serves parts of Thurston County south of the Olympia area, and Lewis County Transit operate routes on I-5 south of Tumwater.)

   3. @asdf2,

      The 167 to I-405 ramps were not built as a transit project, there were built as a congestion relief project.

      Considering NB 167 to NB I-405: Having large numbers of carpools suddenly cross all lanes of traffic on 167 to get to the right most exit lane would cause a lot of congestion on 167. Then, once on I-405, having those same carpools suddenly merge from the right most lane all the way over to the left center HOV lane would cause congestion on I-405.

      And remember, the 167 HOV lanes are actually HOT lanes, and the future I-405 HOV lanes will be too. So they are being actively managed to be as full as possible. So lots of traffic merging across all other lanes of traffic – twice!

      So the ramps do provide a direct service to their HOV/HOT users, but the ramps also provide a service to the people in the GP lanes in the form of less congestion and fewer accidents.

   4. The references to 167 remind me of the ramps connecting the HOV lanes of 167 and 405 together. Sounds great, except, transit-wise, these ramps are only usable by buses that bypass Renton completely, limiting it to just a handful of trips on ST567.

      Yes, it is mainly for carpools.

      There are a number of similar HOV to HOV lanes. I wish they prioritized them based on current and expected need, but they don’t. To be fair, a lot of the decisions can change. For example there is a southbound 405 HOV ramp that connects to the eastbound I-90 HOV ramp. This would have been great if they ran an express bus from Downtown Bellevue to Downtown Seattle. It would have made the trip between the two downtown areas about as fast as the train will. But they never did that and it is highly unlikely they ever will. So it is only used by carpools.

      Sometimes these have a side-benefit for buses though. Often times there will be a big backup at the end of the carpool lane as people wait until the last second to leave it.

6. My understanding is that the extended HOV lanes in Everett helps the Everett buses. It was common to have a huge backup as those in the HOV lanes were forced to exit. The backup would extend far enough south to delay buses heading to Everett via the Broadway exit. My understanding is that the buses are running faster as a result of the change. As the HOV lanes get pushed further north it should help even more.

   I don’t have any personal experience though. Maybe someone who rides the buses to Everett can comment.

7. The place that most needs HOV lanes is I-5 thru downtown and north of downtown, instead we have some stupid mid-century thinking single direction express lanes.

   The inline Freeway Flyer bus stations I notice aren’t really considered BRT for the sake of planning… so no TOD. The deluxe stations on 520 at the Points will remain as they are and seeing barely any use.

   I’d like to see the 542 (UW-Redmond) and a new UW-Bellevue express bus (520/I-405) be part of branded as a ST BRT Stride line on 520 that is treated as complimentary to East Link as well as the three planned Stride BRT lines.

   1. @poncho

      The freeway flyer stops on 520 are definitely a missed opportunity. I suspect none of the nearby cities would be amenable to TOD. The 520 flyer stops do see an OK amount of ridership as a transfer point though. I ride through there regularly and there’s typically a few riders getting picked up or dropped off. I suspect they are transferring 545-255 or using the P+R. I don’t know why there are two freeway flyer stops though; I think Evergreen Point would’ve been more than enough.

      The I-405 center exits north of Bellevue are all fairly promising. I think Canyon Park, Totem Lake, 85th, and Bothell have some room to grow, and they are all getting upzoned by their respective cities.

      I think the new 270 will serve UW-Bellevue quite well. I think it will be just as fast as a 520/405 bus.

      1. when they were rebuilding the 520 they built the freeway lids. since they were building the freeway lids anyways they decided to add in the inline transit stations as well.

         > I’d like to see the 542 (UW-Redmond)
         for uw-redmond one thing that might be added is the eastbound 108th hov ramp. though if they switch over to center hov lanes from south kirkland to redmond im not sure if they’ll also add in a redmond hov direct access ramp to exit

      2. The 520 flyer stops do see an OK amount of ridership as a transfer point though.

         Yes and the sad thing is that Metro/ST never took full advantage of it. For decades it made sense for some 520 buses to go to the UW and some to go downtown. That way riders could transfer there. But the 271 never stopped at the freeway stations. With East Link the 270 will replace the 270 and stop there, but given UW-Link (and the ramps to the UW from the HOV lanes) it makes more sense to just send all the buses to the UW. I guess ST will have some buses head to South Lake Union but not many. The 256 will go downtown but it really shouldn’t (it should be replaced by an all-day bus to the UW).

      3. @Ross Bleakney

         I think what makes the most sense is just to send the 255 to Seattle via Stewart/Olive. It can use the I-5 express lanes when the 520 direct connection opens up. It would have a very frequent transfer to UW via the 270/542. The 270/542 should obviously get sent to UW since Bellevue/Redmond are both connected to Seattle via Link.

         I assume Metro doesn’t have enough service hours for quality transfers. 30-minute service just isn’t good enough for a 2-seat ride.

      4. @WL

         Is there an eastbound 108th HOV ramp planned? It doesn’t seem that useful unless the entire P+R is shifted to 108th/520. It could maybe be used for K line-542 transfers, but that doesn’t seem like a good enough reason to build them.

      5. I think what makes the most sense is just to send the 255 to Seattle via Stewart/Olive.

         The problem is that it takes more service hours. Prior to U-Link it made sense to run buses from 520 to downtown. Now it doesn’t. Riders should transfer to Link. It isn’t a perfect transfer — it does delay riders — but it isn’t terrible. The ramps help a lot and pretty soon Link will be twice as frequent.

         In contrast it takes a really long time to get from Totem Lake to the UW via the 255. An express from Woodinville (that stopped at the Totem Lake freeway station) or a direct bus from Totem Lake* would save those riders a lot more time and perform reasonably well. If the bus started at Totem Lake then riders from Woodinville or Bothell could take the express to Bellevue and transfer.

         *Totem Lake Transit Center is the obvious choice but it is still a bit of a walk from the apartments to the south. Ideally a bus would run through 120th and stop along there. You would have to find a place to layover and turnaround but it seems like there are plenty of opportunities in the area. One possibility is to go as far as Lake Washington Institute of Technology, which is underserved right now.

      6. @Ross Bleakney

         UW is the cheaper option, but Seattle is still the higher value destination. I don’t think it’s a high priority issue and maybe it isn’t worth the service hours at all, but the problem with UW is that it’s painful to reach anywhere that isn’t on Link. Specifically, First Hill and SLU are a very long slog from Kirkland.

         Totem Lake to UW would be nice, but that also seems pretty low priority to me. It wouldn’t necessarily have to duplicate service across the 520; it could exit on Yarrow Point for transfers on the 520 corridor, then take over the tail of the 249. Though I suppose a forced transfer runs into frequency issues once again.

   2. The place that most needs HOV lanes is I-5 thru downtown and north of downtown, instead we have some stupid mid-century thinking single direction express lanes.

      Not really, given that Link has replaced almost all of the buses. There are a handful of express buses but they run during peak which means they can take advantage of the HOV express lanes. Bidirectional express lanes (with HOV lanes) would have been great before UW Link, as the workhorse UW to downtown buses (71, 72, 73, 74) would have taken advantage of them.

      The place that most needs HOV lane improvements is south of downtown. If there were HOV-3 it would make a huge difference. Second is probably north of Lynnwood (where again HOV-3 is needed). There are just a lot more people on the buses that go south of downtown than the buses that go north of Lynnwood (so it should be higher priority).

      If there was an HOV-to-HOV ramp from northbound 405 to westbound 520 (and the reverse) it would make sense to have the bus run express from Downtown Bellevue to the UW. But that would likely cost a bunch of money and using Bellevue Way is not that much slower. I would rather see a HOV-to-HOV ramp from westbound I-90 to northbound 405 (for Issaquah/Eastgate/Downtown Bellevue). This should be built instead of Issaquah Link (as it would be a lot more valuable).

   3. there’s a separate i5 hov to tolling article based on the currently underway i5 master plan as well as previous plans. There are some partial ideas for conversion to bidirection express lanes by wsdot explored in the past. the easiest idea is a all-day south bound lane. for full day bidirectional is also possible but it’ll remove some entrances/exits as many of the existing ramps are only on one side. anyways can probably discuss this more

      1. sorry to clarify a yet to be published article

Comments are closed.